As far as I know the WBC allows unification. You then have a set period of time (it may be a month but I'm not sure) to decide whether to keep the WBC belt and drop all other belts, or drop the WBC belt and keep the others.

As far as I know the WBC allows unification. You then have a set period of time (it may be a month but I'm not sure) to decide whether to keep the WBC belt and drop all other belts, or drop the WBC belt and keep the others.

As I said, I'm not sure of the time scale. It seems they just make that up as they go along.

This is a from WBC boss Sulaiman after Garcia beat Khan:

No specific deadline for Garcia to decide which belt he’ll keep — but that such a decision must be made.

“We were not aware that Garcia was holding the WBA belt also, as the approval by the WBC was conditioned to the irrevocable decision by the winner to decide which of the two belts he would exclusively keep,” Sulaiman wrote via email.

“We understood that he had kept only his WBC belt. If he has not done it, he better do it, as we would withdraw recognition of his title if he doesn't. “We are contacting him through his exclusive promoter, Golden Boy. If he is keeping his other belt, he will not keep ours.”

It's a cliche, but the champion makes the belts, not the other way round.

If Sulaiman follows through with his anti-competitive and ridiculous ruling then the WBC belt becomes meaningless. Wlad would not need to earn it to retain his consensus status as number one heavyweight, the same way he doesn't need the WBF title to legitimise his claim.

It's a cliche, but the champion makes the belts, not the other way round.

If Sulaiman follows through with his anti-competitive and ridiculous ruling then the WBC belt becomes meaningless. Wlad would not need to earn it to retain his consensus status as number one heavyweight, the same way he doesn't need the WBF title to legitimise his claim.

Wlad is #1 with or without the WBC and even if he dropped all his belts.